I'll be brief and to my point. A major complaint of DnD 4E is that isn't different, that its not like previous editions. Well, this isn't a new thing, as the races and world in general are different in each edition. So, instead of complaining "why", ask "why not?"
New rules, new races, new setting... so why stick to The Way it Used to Be?
Why is it "bad". It is only "bad" for my tastes. For other people it is just fine.
What are my objections? (Again, opinions only, but they make me not want to play the game again after a couple of "test sessions")
1)
The overemphasis on combat. This has always been true in D&D, but this edition strips the mask of roleplaying clearly away. Any spells that are not directly involved in combat are now "off stage". Skills that are not directly involved in combat either now have combat applications, have been eliminated, or have been pushed "off stage" again. The game is all but impossible to run without miniatures (it took us nearly a year to break the 3e reliance on minis -- this is harder). All characters have Roles that are
specifically related to how they act in combat. In other words, all aspects of all characters are focused first on combat, second (and far below) on anything else. This is not to my group's taste.
2)
Blandness in presentation. Every character has the same array of powers -- per day, at will, per combat, etc. They progress in the same way. The difference between a fighter and a wizard often feels like just a small group of words -- they act in nearly the same manner. And magic items just feel like add-ons to a character, just another kind of power, rather than something special in and of itself.
3)
Nonhumans are just plug-ins. All nonhumans have positive adds, but no negatives. Much like magical items, these adds simply feel like another set of stats rather than a distinguishing mark.
4)
There are no negative stats. Even if a character starts with a minor negative, this will be erased by later levels as every single stat will be increased. All characters are uberheroic -- thus they are all the same and have nothing to distinguish them. This reminds me of the Gilbert and Sullivan line: "If everybody's somebody, then no one's anybody."
Overall the feeling my group when playing 4e was that we were pushing chits around on a board with minor power variations. We could
put roleplaying elements into such a game, but then again we used to do that with old AM & SPI boardgames. We got nearly the same feeling. Instead we find that we prefer games where combat is part of, but not the major emphasis of, a game; games where social interaction is at least as important as military prowess; games where a character necessarily has holes in his make up that must be overcome through time and trial. In other words, 4e is nearly the opposite of the kind of game we desire.
Having said all of that, I see many people who really like this game. This is good! I am glad you like it, and I mean that without the slightest bit of sarcasm. Each person must find the kind of game that fits them best.
For me, however, 4e is very, very far from that game. And that is equally valid.
